Author Archives: Tom Liberman

Why Does the Government Advertise Wood Milk?

Posted on by
Wood Milk

There’s a bit of a contretemps involving a satirical commercial starring Aubrey Plaza for something called Wood Milk and I’d like to discuss it.

Essentially, the commercial attempts to discredit plant-based milk products by promoting the fictional milk made from wood. A complaint was filed over the commercial and a quick perusal of comments indicates most people don’t fully understand the complaint at all.

The Dairy Promotion Program

Basically, the advertisement is a product of the Dairy Promotion Program and essentially funded by the United States Government. Way back in 1983, dairy farmers in the United States noticed a decline in the amount of milk being consumed. What did they do? Like any good modern-day crony-capitalist, they went running to the government for help.

The government collects money from dairy farmers and runs advertisements for them. It’s a bit more complicated than that, but that’s largely the gist of it.

Dairy Management Inc

Remember Got Milk? See any generic advertisements for cheese? Seen the Aubrey Plaza advertisement for Wood Milk? That’s all the government, or as they like to say, quasi-government agencies. Dairy Management Inc. runs all of these campaigns using money collected from dairy operations. They run advertisements primarily to elementary and high school students. Got a problem with indoctrination anyone?

The money is collected from dairy organizations, so it’s fine, right? Wrong. The money is collected from dairy organizations who pass that cost along to you and then the DMI strongarms fast-food companies into having more milk and cheese-based items and advertises to promote them, mainly to children.

The Problem with Wood Milk

The problem with the Wood Milk advertisement is that it negatively attacks plant-based milk products. It doesn’t just promote milk. That’s government playing favorites in a blatant fashion. I’ll be honest, my problems with the DMI and the DPP extend far beyond Wood Milk. They are organizations that should not exist.

Government in Advertising

Does the government advertise whiskey? Beer? Soda? It does not and it should not. If any dairy company wants to create an advertisement, that’s well and good, that’s capitalism. If a bunch of dairy companies want to pool their money and run advertisements promoting their product, I don’t have a problem with that either.

It’s the government involvement that sticks in the craw of this Libertarian. Particularly when that advertisement takes aim at a rival product.

I’d be just as upset if the government advertised solar energy over oil and I suspect a lot of people who support the DMI and DPP would as well.

Conclusion

Yes, milk consumption is going down in the United States and has been for decades. It’s not the fault of plant-based milk products, it’s the free market. People like bottled water more than milk. If a product isn’t desired by the public anymore, then the government shouldn’t be involved in propping up the industry for the sake of jobs.

Tom Liberman

Tribal Regalia in Oklahoma

Posted on by
Tribal Regalia

I just read an interesting story about Native Americans being allowed to wear traditional garb during school graduations. The Oklahoma legislature handily overrode Governor Kevin Stitt’s veto on the matter.

The reason I think it’s an interesting topic is the facts of the legislation and veto are largely misrepresented in the article and in public discourse. The legislature is largely being hailed for allowing the wearing of tribal regalia while Governor Stitt is being attacked for wanting to forbid such displays at graduation. This is largely false.

Neither Allowed or Forbidden

It’s important to understand the Oklahoma legislature didn’t simply allow students to wear tribal regalia, they made it illegal for schools to prevent them from doing so. Likewise, it’s useful to understand Governor Stitt isn’t forbidding students from wearing tribal regalia, his veto simply allows local schools to decide for themselves if such adornments to the traditional cap and gown are forbidden.

Libertarian View

It is my opinion Governor Stitt has the right of it. It’s not in the purview of the state of Oklahoma to dictate graduation garb. It’s not a problem for state government and by intruding on this local decision they extend an authoritarian control to the state which it should not have.

As I often say, if you agree with the state unilaterally giving something then you tacitly condone the state taking the same thing away. If the state of Oklahoma can tell a school district they must allow people to wear native regalia at graduation you are granting the state the authority to command students cannot wear such native regalia. This is the problem with government overreach in general.

The Slippery Slope

There is also the slippery slope argument if the state commands Native Americans cannot be stopped from wearing tribal regalia, other organizations will demand the same right. Can a Christian student carry a giant cross as they receive their diploma? Can a Satanist student wear a huge pentagram? Can a devotee of the Flying Spaghetti Monster wear a colander on her or his head? Can a student from France wear the French flag and sing La Marseillaise as they walk?

I’m not a believer in the slippery slope argument. If students of particular organizations want the right to wear such regalia, then each school district should decide on their own if it is allowed. This is the entire point of Governor Stitt in regards to tribal regalia. It must be up to the local school district or college to make that decision, not the state.

Conclusion

States’ Rights should not trump local rights although the judicial system in the United States seems to have taken another view on that subject. We have swung too much toward States’ Rights in this country. States now seem to have an almost totalitarian right to dictate to communities about anything they want, including whether or not a community is allowed to ban declawing cats. The state should not have the right to dictate to local communities any more than the Federal Government has the right to dictate to the states.

Tom Liberman

Raiders of the Lost Ark or Indiana Jones?

Posted on by
Indiana Jones

The latest entry in the Raider of the Lost Ark movie series; I mean the latest entry in the Indiana Jones movie series just released and I want to talk about it. Not the movie, the title of the movie. Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny follows the pattern of every movie in the series since the original.

The question I’d like to examine today is if the movies suffer from focusing on Indiana Jones as opposed to the story in which he finds himself embroiled. Why is every movie except the first prefaced with the name Indiana Jones?

A Treasured Memory

Raiders of the Lost Ark is considered a classic by most reviewers. It is a valued memory for me and I suspect quite a few others of my age who were around in 1981 when it first released. I was seventeen and, in my little circle of friends, Raiders was everything. The boulder, we’d say to one another. The boulder.

Focus of the Story

While I do think there are plenty of people who enjoyed the subsequent movies, the general consensus is they never quite captured the magic of Raiders of the Lost Ark. I think the main reason for this is the sequels focused on Indiana Jones. We learned more about more about the protagonist and the story suffered.

I can say quite unequivocally that I found Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom to be rather lazy. Trying too hard to repeat the action sequences and largely failing. Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade was a nostalgic movie that focused largely on the relationship of Indiana Jones with his father and again, the main story suffered badly.

Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull found a more receptive critical audience but I found it more of an attempt to brand Shia LaBeouf as a new hero to the franchise. Lots of actions but not much more. No interesting story to propel the characters, to make me care.

The new movie is receiving rather tepid reviews so far but I can’t speak to it as I have not seen it.

Why Raiders is Better than Indiana Jones

Raiders of the Lost Ark is by far the best of the series and I think the reason is rather simple. Indiana Jones is marketable. The character is interesting and sells tickets. Focus on Indiana Jones, not the story. The audience wants to learn more about him and doesn’t care as much about an interesting story.

One of the things I suggest to people who come to me for writing advice is coming up with a story is easy. There are a million plot ideas. The stories behind all the Indiana Jones movies are just fine. It’s the implementations, driven by the name recognition of the title character, that fail.

I think the people who made the sequels to Raiders of the Lost Ark, like those who approach me about how to write a book, had a good idea. I’ve got a great idea for a novel; they say with eager eyes. Now what? That’s fantastic, that’s a great starting point. You can’t write the novel or the screenplay without the idea. Now, implement it. Five act play. Hero’s journey. Character arc. Voice. Theme. Inciting incident. Conflict. Have at it.

Conclusion

I somehow think if it was just The Temple of Doom, The Last Crusade, The Crystal Skull, The Dial of Destiny they might have been better movies. I’m probably wrong. Marketing is marketing. Making movies that make money is more important than making good movies. It probably wouldn’t have made any difference.

Still, I feel cheated out of some better movies.

Tom Liberman

California Pork Supreme Court Ruling is good for Small Farmers

Posted on by
California Pork

The Supreme Court recently ruled California pork rules for items sold within the state are constitutional. The ruling itself came from an unusual 5-4 split decision but that’s not really what I want to discuss today.

The ruling is roiling politicians from pork producing states like Iowa and the leaders of factory farm proponents. Scott Hays of the National Pork Producers Council and Senators Chuck Grassley and Joni Ernst of Iowa all lambaste the ruling as working against small farmers. They are lying. Those three and others like them are not the friend of small farmers. Let’s get into it.

The Rise of the CAFO

Small farmers are being decimated by Concentrated Animal Feed Organizations. I wrote about them recently in a ruling that went in their favor in Missouri. The rule upheld by the Supreme Court for California hurts not the small farmer but the CAFOs.

Small farmers are under tremendous pressure from CAFOs. We’re losing small farmers at a tremendous rate to these enormous operations. Bankruptcy, suicide, and the selling of the family farm to bankers. That’s the reality of being a small farmer today.

Chuck Grassley and Joni Ernst aren’t on your Side

Small farmers are largely not affected by the California rule or, at the worst, can fairly easily comply. That’s why a number of organizations that support small farmers filed briefs in favor of the California rule. The organizations that are badly hurt are CAFOs. They cannot easily change their operations to treat animals in a more humane fashion.

When Grassley, Ernst, and Clark begin their wailing and weeping they show their true colors. They are all for the destruction of the traditional family farm. They hate the family farm. They want the big CAFO and the big campaign contribution. This is largely the state of the Republican Party. People in rural communities are voting for politicians that actively work to destroy the family farm all the while lying and telling the farmers the exact opposite. It’s vile.

Your Vote Matters

If the rural community continue to support politicians like Grassley and Ernst then it gets exactly what it wants and exactly what it deserves.

Conclusion

I’m not telling you for whom to vote but I am saying there are alternatives. It’s easy to get into a mindset where one party is the cause of all your ills and you vote the opposite. Remember, there are third- and fourth-party choices who offer a different vision.

Tom Liberman

The Ark a Story of Beautiful people in Crisis

Posted on by
The Ark

The Ark on the SyFy channel. Wow, is it bad. Stunningly bad. Dialog? Bad. Acting? Bad. Science? Nonsensical. Sets? Boring. Music? Blah. Bad and worse. It’s terrible.

That being said, there’s no reason you shouldn’t like it. It’s very simple entertainment. Good looking people face and defeat one crisis after the next. It doesn’t demand much from the audience and a lot of people simply enjoy the scenery.

But, I’m here to do a review and that’s what I’m going to do.

Eastern Europe Production

A number of commenters point out The Ark was created principally in Serbia and many of the people associated with the show are thus from Eastern Europe rather than Hollywood or London. This is all true but it doesn’t excuse the bad acting and writing.

You cannot tell me there aren’t better actors in theater houses all over Belgrade? That you can’t find writers who understand basic science in Eastern Europe? That great writers don’t ply their trade in Serbia? It’s not an excuse.

Beautiful People

The actors are one good looking bunch but it’s clear to me they were chosen for the roles based on appearance, not acting ability. That’s a real shame because I’m certain fine actors from Serbia and the surrounding regions auditioned for the roles. I largely didn’t even learn character names.

Bad Science

I can’t even begin to go over how bad is the science on this show. I wrote a couple of blogs after each of the first two episodes, and you can look there for some of the glaring mistakes. If you spotted any one of the dozens of scientific inaccuracies, please feel free to note them down in a comment.

The point here is I find it impossible to enjoy a show when I see scientific errors a fifth-grade student wouldn’t make. It completely takes me out of immersion. I can’t like the show when one scientific blunder follows the next.

Crisis after Crisis

The biggest problem with this show is the formulaic crisis scenes. It starts with the opening scene and doesn’t stop until the finale. They all follow the same pattern. Everything is fine. A crisis emerges suddenly without warning. Crisis music plays. Commercial break. The crisis is solved with some crazy idea from one of the characters. It’s not the crisis du jour it’s crisis du commercial break.

Who solves the problem? Let’s go over it.

Maybe it’s overly tan girl whose main acting trait is opening her eyes wider to indicate crisis. It might be captain curly hair whose acting skill is saying her lines louder. Otherwise, its beefcake boy whose main acting method is to thicken his accent. Usually, it’s super-annoying girl who happened to study that exact thing back when she was in third grade because her mother had one of those thingy bobs. Maybe its stammering lad coming up with a brilliant plan.

The cause of the crisis is usually something stupid like doctor dope fiend didn’t properly read the instructions on the manual.

I will never do that!

The number of times a character absolutely refuses to do something but is convinced two seconds later to do exactly that is incalculable. It happens with almost every single conversation. I won’t! You should! Ok! That’s fifty percent of the dialog in this show.

Fighting Skills

Oh my flying spaghetti monster but this is annoying. Someone can’t fight until suddenly they can. Whine and complain boy is useless until he needs to beat up three heavily armed guards and escape. Mind you, he couldn’t beat up pouty-lipped, bi-polar girl who looks like she might weigh ninety pounds. When she hits someone, I’m afraid her boney little arms will break.

The Sets

My eyes roll every time I see some stupid antique chair on Ark 15. It’s obviously exactly the same set as Ark 1. I pity the crew that had to nail up tacky paintings and then take them back down. The Ark has far too much open space. The engine room from the outside is massive. Inside it’s tiny. No attention to detail. Bland and boring.

The Good

This show is so bad I could probably continue railing for another thousand words but I do want to take a moment to give credit where it’s due. Pavle Jerinic is the only character I believe in his role. He’s Felix, chief of security and he’s good.

The sound editing is great. Despite the fact English isn’t the first language of a lot of these characters I understand them clearly. The music doesn’t drown them out. They don’t mumble and speak with such heavy accents I can’t figure out what they’re saying. You’ll say this is damning with faint praise but I’ve seen shows with a much bigger budget and productions values do far worse. The Nevers, I’m talking to you.

The Evil Plan

The ultimate villain has a stupid plan. They’ve got 500 people between two ships which is the entirety of the human race. She doesn’t want to share an entire planet with half of them? It’s madness. Fly up, get the necessary ingredient, sing kumbaya. Done.

Conclusion

I’m really sad this show is so awful. I love science fiction and the premise here is good, as I discuss in my other reviews. With good actors and competent writers this might have been an entertaining show. As it stands, it’s just plain bad.

Tom Liberman

Cormoran Strike the Mumbling Detective

Posted on by
Cormoran Strike

I just finished watching Series Five of Strike which features the J. K. Rowling detective Cormoran Strike and now it’s time for a review. Mostly mediocre. I could probably stop there and be done with it but I will elaborate.

The show features Tom Burke as detective Cormoran Strike and Holliday Grainger as his entirely unlikable sidekick Robin Ellacott. Not that she’s written to be unlikable, she just is. The show is based on the novels by Rowling and a sixth was published in 2022 so one imagines we’ll have another series along shortly.

All the Mumbling

I’m not going to blame Burke for his mumbling portrayal of Cormoran Strike because I’m guessing that’s the way the director told him to play it. Apparently, someone besides me complained because in the fifth series he is actually understandable a good 75 percent of the time, a marked improvement.

It really takes away from my ability to enjoy the series when I can’t understand the lead character most of the time. I’m sure the English accent probably has something to do with it but it was mainly his unwillingness to open his mouth when speaking that caused the issues.

Convoluted Mysteries

I’ve spoken before that too often a writer makes the mystery entirely impossible to solve through a series of baffling events. This is done so that the audience doesn’t figure out the solution too easily. I think it’s a mistake to make things too convoluted. You lose the audience.

The second, third, and fourth series in particular became so confusing with so many different things going on that I largely lost the thread and my interest. The fifth series was much better and presented a far more straight-forward mystery.

Speaking of the fifth series, I thought it was largely the best of the entire show except for one glaring misstep. The serial killer Cormoran interviews during the case might as well have been named Hannibal Lector with a Fan Fiction label placed on the scenes. Not that I’ve got anything against fan fiction.

The blatant derivative nature of the character really turned me off to what was otherwise the best series of the show.

Too Much Personal Life and not Enough Mystery

Another thing I’ve complained about before in mysteries is the loss of focus on the crime and solution and too much attention to the detectives and their personal lives. Strike suffers from this throughout all five seasons.

There’s nothing wrong with getting to know the detective team outside their professional lives but the scenes so doing should further the story. In the case of Strike, the details about Cormoran and Robin didn’t do anything for the mystery. Robin’s failed marriage in particular just annoyed me, but more about annoying Robin next.

Robin is not a Likeable Character

You don’t have to be a good person to be a likeable character. See Tony Soprano. Robin is just unpleasant. She’s a snotty, holier-than-thou, know-it-all, insufferable master of disguise. Cormoran has moments of being unpleasant but overall, he’s likeable and it’s his portrayal that makes the show watchable. Robin, not so much.

I did not find her panic attacks endearing, just annoying. Annoying. I don’t mind hating a character. That’s usually the sign of an interesting character. But an annoying character is just unpleasant to watch and there is a lot of Robin.

The Other Stuff

The acting is largely good to excellent. The sets are very nice. The music is subtle and doesn’t dominate scenes as too often happens. I believed the characters and the locations.

Conclusion

Not good. Not bad. Mediocre detective work. My main issues are the confusing story, the annoying Robin, and the mumbling Cormoran.

Tom Liberman

The Deuce Lost its Story

Posted on by
The Deuce

I just wrapped up season three of The Deuce and I’m ready to write my review. The executive producer of The Deuce is David Simon from The Wire fame and the show aired on HBO between 2017 and 2019. It’s a raw show that tackles the emerging sex and pornography industry in New York during the 1970s and 1980s.

When it worked, it worked quite well although it’s not a show for the easily offended. When it failed, it fell terribly flat. This being the case, it’s not particularly easy to write a simple review. Is it good? Is it bad? It’s both.

The Story is the Thing

The first season of The Deuce is the best and I think this is because it committed to telling a story. Multiple stories. There is an ensemble cast including James Franco in dual roles as Vincent and Frankie Martino, Maggie Gyllenhaal as Candy/Eileen, and a host of others.

The story of that first season revolved around Vincent as a business owner and Candy as a prostitute. They are surrounded by a colorful cast of pimps, police officers, and prostitutes. It’s basically telling three stories through a variety of characters. That of police corruption, organized criminal presence in business ownership, and prostitution.

What makes the first season good is the intersection of these three stories with the lives of all the characters. It’s raw, very raw. I found the sexual content over the top but, considering the nature of the story, I understand why they went in that direction.

We get to know corrupt police officers and those officers fighting the good fight with integrity. We meet mobsters who care and those who do not. We learn about the lives of pimps and whores and prostitutes who choose to work without a pimp.

It all comes together nicely. The first season, if you can get past all the lurid content, is fantastic.

The Lost Story

Starting in the second season The Deuce loses track of the underlying story that brought it all together and starts to focus on the characters. There’s nothing wrong with deep character development and watching as them change over time. The drug culture, VCRs making pornography available privately in the home, organized crime, the city of New York’s attempt to clean up the region, and the deadly AIDS epidemic.

The problem is the plethora of characters means we mainly just get one vignette after the next. First, we’re with Vincent for a one-minute scene and then Eileen for another. We jump from scene to scene between the many characters rapidly and meanwhile the underlying story gets lost in the minutia. It’s just too much and the story grinds to a halt while we learn more and more about the lives of each of the characters.

There just isn’t enough time to tell all the stories. There are plenty of good moments and the acting is outstanding. The sets are amazing. The passion is evident. There’s just not a good story to hold it together anymore.

The Tragic Lives

The third season focuses even more intensely on individual characters but some of the most intriguing old characters are gone. Larry Brown and his burgeoning acting career. Darlene’s transition into the life of a nurse. Gone.

New characters arrive and their stories take up a large amount of screen time but don’t really advance anything. It’s all character studies and no story. Nothing affects anything else. When Lori kills herself there isn’t time to show how others deal with the tragedy. It’s never mentioned again by anyone. Well, that’s that, let’s move on to someone else.

Abby’s wealthy family ties? Not enough time. The newspaper stories? Nope, too much else going on. Eileen’s son?

I’m not opposed to all the unhappy endings. I don’t think everything needs to be tied up in a neat little bow to make the audience happy. There’s nothing wrong with leaving things ambiguous. I do think the story needs to end with something though, anything satisfactory, whether good or bad. Here it all just fades away.

Conclusion

The first season is absolutely outstanding. I really enjoyed it and perhaps that’s why I found myself so disappointed in the second and third season. The Deuce just lost track of telling a story and instead focused on the lives of the characters too much.

You may disagree.

Tom Liberman

Ding Liren is World Chess Champion get over it

Posted on by
Ding Liren

Ding Liren of China defeated Ian Nepomniachtchi in the 2023 World Chess Championship to become the World Chess Champion, to the displeasure of a vocal many. The reason for the unhappiness is that Ding is merely the third ranked chess player in the world behind Magnus Carlsen. Nepomniachtchi is the second ranked player.

Ding Liren and Nepomniachtchi finished up the most exciting chess championship in recent years with Ding Liren winning the fourth tie-break game. This after their fourteen round match ended with them tied at three victories each.

Carlsen decided not to defend the title he held for the last ten years and this is the crux of the issues against Ding, although anti-Chinese sentiment plays a role as well. What do I think about all this? Let me tell you.

Carlsen Refuses to Defend

Magnus Carlsen is one of those rare champions who truly dominates an individual sport. He is a Roger Federer or Tiger Woods like player. He won the World Chess Championship back in 2013 and defended it four times. He earned the title as the top-ranked player in the world in 2010 at the age of nineteen.

After ten years of holding the title, Carlsen decided not to defend it for a fifth time. He is widely considered the best chess player of all time.

The Championship Format

The world chess champion is decided in a peculiar way and I think that is the cause of much of the angst about Ding Liren. Unlike many team sports, there is not a championship tournament every year. Unlike many individual sports, the champion is not determined by a point rating system at the end of the season.

In chess, the champion remains champion for two years and then defends the title against a challenger who wins a tournament called Candidates. Magnus decided not to defend so it was decided the first and second place finishers in the Candidates tournament would play for the championship.

Nepomniachtchi won Candidates with Ding Liren finishing second. In a normal year this would result in a match between Nepomniachtchi and Carlsen, a rematch from the event two years ago when Carlsen thoroughly dismantled the challenger winning three games and losing none.

There are many people who, quite vocally, proclaim Ding Liren is not a valid champion. That the real champion is still Magnus Carlsen.

Ding Liren is the Champion

Poppycock! Ding Liren is the World Chess Champion for the simple reason he won the title. The Boston Bruins recently completed the best regular season in the history of the NHL. They lost in the first round of the playoffs. No one is going to claim the Bruins are the real Stanley Cup Champions.

If Magnus chose to defend, it’s likely he would have won but we will never know. What doesn’t happen, doesn’t happen. Any speculation on what might have happened is just that, speculation. There is no way to know. What we do know is they played under the rules and Ding Liren won.

Conclusion

Is Magnus Carlsen the best chess player in the world? Yes. He’s the number one ranked player and he will remain so until some future date. Is he the World Chess Champion? Nope, not anymore. He chose not to defend. It’s really that simple.

Ding Liren is the champion and to the victor go the spoils.

Tom Liberman

Perry Mason Season Two Review

Posted on by
Perry Mason

I just finished watching the second season of Perry Mason and I’m ready to write my review. If you recall, I loved the first season and lavished it with high praise. Does the second season live up to the first? I’m afraid not. It’s still entertaining television, certainly.

I don’t like to harp too much on what went wrong this season because it’s still good and well-worth watching. That being said, it wasn’t of the same quality as the first season.

Wrong Focus on Personal Relationships

I found the focus on the personal lives of Mason, Della Street, Hamilton Burger, and Paul Drake took away from the investigative nature of the show. I thought they did a good job of balancing personal lives and the crime investigation in the first season but fell far short here.

Both the Street and Mason relationships didn’t add anything or further the mystery. Particularly with Della, the focus seemed to be on the salacious rather than anything to do with the crime. Much better, in my opinion, was the focus on the personal lives of side characters in season one. We learned a great deal about them and this furthered the story and explained the nature and circumstance of the crime.

My preference is for a deeper examination of the lives of the McCutcheon and Gallardo families. I particularly felt the absence of any sort of look into the widow Elizabeth McCutcheon and her children left the show incomplete. The murder of Brooks is the focus along with learning why Rafeal and Mateo committed the horrific crime. Yet, we learn only a little of their past and lives with so much screen time dedicated to Mason and Street. We should have found out more about Phipps and his wife earlier as well.

The stories of Emily Dodson and Sister Alice in the first season immersed me completely and the failure to do so in the second season is the biggest problem with this season, at least in my opinion. The impact of the crime just isn’t there because the focus is on the wrong people.

The Reason for the Murder is Unconvincing

I found the entire oil embargo, fruit swap, Japan connection to be unconvincing. It just didn’t seem like a good reason to have Brooks murdered. How did the murder get arranged? Who talked to the Gallardo brothers?

The entire thing just seemed contrived and unbelievable. I didn’t buy it and this really took me out of immersion of the show. The fact we spent so much time on the personal lives of Perry and Della, as mentioned earlier, means we really didn’t leave time to flesh this part of the story into anything believable.

The Best Parts of Perry Mason

The amazing sets. I can’t give enough praise to the set designers in this series. Fantastic work. The music also stood out as helping scenes rather than dominating them.

Conclusion

I’m not recommending giving the second season of Perry Mason a pass, it’s still quality entertainment. I hope the writers will get back to what made season one so great. Don’t focus on Mason and Street. Focus on the crime. Why the crime happened. The lives of the criminals and those around them. That’s the story.

Tom Liberman

Sanditon Season 3 Review Meh

Posted on by
Sanditon

Sanditon wrapped up its three years run the other night and Charlotte finally got her man. I’m fairly certain most people will be happy with the largely treacly finale but I can’t say I found it overly enamoring.

I doubt I’m the main audience for Sanditon and therefore the fact I didn’t really enjoy the sweet and happy ending will probably not come as a big surprise. That being said, my main problem with the third season of Sanditon was the lack of continuity. Let’s get into it.

What Happened

What happened? Too much happened to be honest. There were two many characters and too many stories; meaning no one really got enough screen time.

Let’s cover all the romances and pseudo-romances. Charlotte and Ralph. Charlotte and Alexander. Alexander and Lydia. Lydia and someone we never meet. Arthur and Harry. Harry and Miss Lambe. Miss Lambe and Otis. Edward and Augusta. Lady Denham and Mr. Pryce. Lady Susan and Samuel. Dr. Fuchs and Beatrice. Oh my god. Stop! Please! Cupid, leave the set! Enough!

Mary Parker almost died but then miraculously recovered. Miss Lambe’s mother appeared, disappeared, and reappeared. The town was saved from the evil money-grubbers and the children have roofs over their homes.

Continuity Issues

I spoke about this in my previous reviews of Sanditon and it reappears constantly throughout this season. People move from place to place as if they have access to the Enterprise and transporters. Charlotte is having a conversation in Sanditon one moment, at Mr. Colbourne’s estate the next, and back on the beach a moment later. It happens for all the characters, all the time.

The worst offense was Mr. Pryce and Tom Parker. At one point they cancelled all their plans. Then came five scenes where they discussed with other people the continuation of those plans. Finally, at the end, they came together by accident and settled their differences. The settling needed to come before five other scenes.

In my opinion, the problem is largely with editing the scenes. Someone stitched them together completely out of order. People jump from place to place so rapidly I feared whiplash.

Happy Endings

For those yearning a happy ending, you largely got it. Only Edward, played outstandingly by Jack Fox, was left alone. His story didn’t make a ton of sense of me anyway. If he loved Augusta, why not take up Alexander’s offer to court and marry her properly? Anyway, not a big deal.

Miss Lambe ended up with Otis, whose gambling problems certainly won’t recur. Charlotte ended up with Alexander, the white-hot heat of their passionate screen chemistry forcing me to put on a sweater as I watched. Lady Susan and Samuel ended up together which was fairly nice. And finally, the romance I actually cared about, the one that garnered my interest, intrigued me, made me believe: Dr. Fuchs and Beatrice got together! Hoopa. I’m not even kidding. That’s the one relationship in this show with which I found myself invested.

Conclusion

It’s not bad by any means. I just got bored. Not my cup of tea as they say across the pond.

Tom Liberman

A Plus Sized Passenger on the Airline

Posted on by
Plus Sized Passenger

There’s an article making the rounds about a plus sized passenger who is unhappy she has to pay for two seats in order to fit into the airline seat. As you might suspect, comments are running pretty heavily against Jae’lynn Chaney. Most people think if she wants a free seat, she should simply lose some weight.

While I don’t disagree with the general sentiment, I do think there’s a larger issue at play here than simply Chaney’s weight.

Airline Seats

As most of you readers probably know, I’m a robust 5’ 7 1/2” tall and 160 lbs. of twisted steel and sex appeal. In other words, I’m short and thin. Airline seats are comfortable enough for me but not by a lot. I don’t have much room to either side and if anyone even moderately larger sits next to me it starts to be a squeeze.

I have tall friends and they aren’t happy with the seat size in airplanes. People are getting bigger and seats are getting smaller. That’s reality. If you’re a plus sized passenger or even just a tall person, it’s not comfortable to sit in them.

We all know the reason seats are shrinking. It’s to get more seats on the plane. More seats. More tickets to sell. At this point, I’d say the average person doesn’t find airplane seats comfortable.

Define a Plus Sized Passenger

This is where things get tricky. How do we define a plus sized passenger? If the average person in the United States cannot comfortably fit in the seat, is that the problem of the passenger or the airline?

If the airlines continue to shrink seats so almost no one can fit comfortably, should we all have to pay for two tickets?

Competition

Certainly, as a Libertarian, I think the airline can make the seats whatever size they want and charge people accordingly. It’d be nice if the government hadn’t subsidized air and car travel to the tune of trillions of dollars and we had competitive rail.

Sadly, that’s not reality. If we want to get from one place in the country to another in a reasonable amount of time, airplanes are pretty much our only choice. If you’re a plus sized passenger, you’re going to be uncomfortable or pay twice the rate.

Conclusion

It’s my opinion air travel has never been nor will ever be a profitable enterprise without government subsidies. We don’t have viable alternatives because the government squeezed passenger rail almost out of existence.

We’re stuck with ever decreasing seat sizes and uncomfortable travel. One day you’ll be the one who no longer fits in the seat.

Buy Marijuana in Missouri

Posted on by
Buy marijuana in Missouri

Everyone once in a while I need a reminder as to why I’m a Libertarian and my recent attempt to buy marijuana in Missouri gave me such. You see, I wasn’t trying to buy marijuana in Missouri for myself, that’s what the whiskey is for, I was trying to buy marijuana in Missouri for an 84-year-old woman with degenerative arthritis in her hip which causes chronic pain. Hint, it’s my mom.

Turned away. Why? Because I was buying for someone else. I can purchase recreational marijuana for myself. No problem. Credit card please. It’s for my mother who is in chronic pain, can’t walk, and can’t really get into the store without causing herself agony. Out you go, Tom. No demon gummies for you.

The Purpose of a Law

What is the purpose of this law? All I need do is go in and tell the clerk I’m buying it for myself. It’s not an impediment. This is the sort of thing that gets my Libertarian blood in a huff. A huff, I tell you. I rolled my eyes and left. I suppose I could have stayed and purchased the marijuana for myself but I figured I didn’t want to get the clerk in trouble. I’ll go back later.

Who Wrote this?

Someone wrote this law. A group of legislators voted to pass it. The governor signed it. I understand some people don’t like the fact marijuana is legal in the Missouri. That’s fine, at least that’s a defendable position, one I disagree with categorically, but at least an opinion.

Even if you oppose the sale of legal marijuana in Missouri you can’t possibly defend this nonsense. It’s totally useless. It does nothing. It stops nothing.

What could you do?

The simple solution is to limit the amount of marijuana I can buy. If I’m buying for ten people then this precludes me from purchasing so much. It’s still pretty stupid even then as the ten people can just come in themselves and buy it on their own, they don’t need me.

The Problem with the Law

My mother does need me to purchase because she isn’t particularly mobile. The only effect of this law is presumably to prevent me from buying marijuana for my mother, although, it obviously does not do that. Useless law.

Conclusion

Stupid laws are stupid. Legislators that pass stupid laws are stupid. Vote Libertarian.

Tom Liberman

How to Improve your Social Media Experience

Posted on by
Improve your social media experience

If you’re finding social media to be unpleasant then you probably want to improve your social media experience. I’m certainly in that category, or at least I was a few weeks back.

I think, for a lot of people, social media becomes a place to read about upsetting things. Maybe it’s your politics or religion. Maybe it’s something else. Whatever the cause, you’re reading a lot of things that upset you. That’s not a great place to be.

It’s your Social Media

If you want to improve your social media experience one of the first things to do is take control. Social media is largely fed to you based on computer algorithms. The things you investigate via search engines or simply articles you read are pitched to you in an endless loop.

The algorithm thinks, aha, Tom likes this. I’ll give him more. A lot of people think the algorithm is in control but it’s not. You’re in control. Take the reins. How? Simply start clicking on things you enjoy rather than things that upset you.

What do I like?

I started by clicking a few astronomy images that I found pleasing to the eye. Soon enough such images started appearing in my social media. This led to some wildlife images. I clicked on those. Then came pictures of amazing birds. The art of bonsai followed. Historical articles based on facts rather than nonsensical speculation began to pop up. Amazing rock formations led to geologic crystals. The delight seems endless.

It took less than a week and my social media feed now contains many things that make me smile. If you want to improve your social media experience, I’d suggest you follow my plan.

What I’m not Saying

I’m not saying social media is all wine and roses. I read a lot of articles looking for things to blog about and that leads me down some insane rabbit holes filled with frightening and delusional people. There’s a lot of crazy out there and they will never go away.

My Fifty-Percent Rule

It’s never going to be perfect. There will always be bad with the good and good with the bad. What I try to do is figure out if I’m enjoying myself more than I’m getting enraged by utter stupidity. If I’m enjoying myself the majority of the time, then I’ll keep at it. The same with people. If I find a person to be toxic the majority of the time, I’ll just stop doing things with that person as best I can.

I thought social media was toxic, enraging, bad for me. I suspect that’s why a lot of people simply turn away from it. Which is sad because it’s also filled with a lot wonderful things. Great friends, family, beauty.

Conclusion

Now, it’s not a perfect system. I still find things on social media upsetting. I still get angry when I read certain articles. That being said, I do find I notably enjoy my social media time more than I did just a few weeks ago.

The algorithms are fast to spot a new type of activity. If you want improve your social media experience, it’s actually pretty easy.

Tom Liberman

Daisy Pearce Misleading Headline

Posted on by
Daisy Pearce

Daisy Pearce barred from second AFL club’s dressing room blares the misleading headline from the Daily Mail. AFL stands for Australian Football League. The headline seems to indicate two teams barred a woman from their dressing room leaving the impression this happened because of her gender.

This misleading headline, like most of its ilk, isn’t actually a lie. It’s just misleading. The reality is that Daisy Pearce was, in fact, barred from the dressing rooms of both Brisbane Lions and Richmond Tigers locker rooms. But why?

Because she’s a Woman?

Nope. It’s because she’s an assistant coach for an opposing team. Representatives from both clubs make it clear the reason is her dual job as a commentator for Channel Seven in Australia and her job as an assistant coach.

They fear she might gain access to information in the locker room that she can use in preparation with the Geelong Cats. It’s not an unreasonable request and several other assistant coaches filled dual roles with media outlets in the past with similar results.

Who is Daisy Pearce?

Daisy Pearce is a former Australian Football League Women’s champion player who played for the Melbourne Demons with distinction. She was named to the All-Australia team three times during her career in addition to being best and fairest on her own club three times as well.

She retired in 2022 and took up a job as a commentator for Channel Seven. This year she accepted a job as an assistant coach while continuing her duties for the television outlet.

What’s it all Mean?

Channel Seven commentated on the situation with a representative saying they expected some teams might take that rout with Daisy Pearce and her job didn’t require a presence in the locker room. In other words, it’s not really a story at all.

Conclusion

The headline draws in clicks. It did so for me. I thought, ah, a Daisy Pearce must have done something wrong to get banned. A woman in the locker room? There must be something salacious. Nope, just a plain old misleading headline. Nothing to see here. Do you think the story would be in the Daily Mail if a man in the some position received a ban?

Conservatives Screw Conservatives with CAFO Regulation

Posted on by
CAFO

I’m happy for the chance to use my Libertarian platform to defend rural farmers against conservative lawmakers in regard to CAFO regulations. Too often in the last few years I’ve found my Libertarian ideals deeply at odds with authoritarian so-called conservatives but this case brings us together. At least some of us.

At issue is legislation making it illegal for local counties to regulate CAFOs. The Missouri Supreme Court recently upheld the Missouri legislature’s law to that affect. The people fighting against this are largely rural farmers and landowners who do not want a CAFO on nearby land and wish to enforce sensible regulations on them.

What is a CAFO?

A CAFO is a concentrated animal feeding operation. Fun name. Disgusting result. Basically, industrial farms house tens of thousands of animals, or even a hundred thousand animals, at a single facility. This is done because it can be extremely profitable for the company doing so. This concentration of animals results in an enormous amount of manure. The manure contains nutrient pollution, pathogens, salts, odorous compounds, antibiotics, pesticide, and hormones.

The Danger of a CAFO

The danger in such a large concentration of animals at a single facility is obvious. The waste product as listed above can easily destroy the local ecosystem and the smell can be unbearable for neighbors. The air quality in the region of a CAFO brings health risks to anyone living nearby.

Then, of course, there is the reasonable concern for the welfare of animals. While they are to be slaughtered, the conditions in which they sometimes live their lives can not unfairly be described as vile.

In addition, these facilities largely drive down the price of meat and make it difficult for local farmers to make a living. Naturally, this is also a good thing in that consumers pay less for their dietary needs.

The State’s Role in a CAFO

It is the state’s obligation to pass laws in regards to CAFO safety. Laws in regard to how much waste a facility can dump, how it manages that waste, and how the animals are treated are in place.

Local Rule

In Missouri we have a Right to Farm. That means local counties can pass rules regarding how farming is in done in their region. Small farmers, generally conservative in their political beliefs, do not like having a CAFO in the region. This aligns them with environmentalists and animal rights activists, generally considered liberal groups.

The Missouri legislatures passed a law which makes it illegal for local counties to make any regulation on a CAFO stricter than the state’s own laws.

Naturally, the local farmers weren’t too happy about the state coming in and telling them what they can and cannot do. I agree wholeheartedly. Keep in mind I also agree when it comes to transgender issues or when the school year starts. This is where my Libertarian philosophy doesn’t run into any conflict. I think the local community has every right to pass regulations regarding things not protected in the Constitution of the United States.

If the local community wants to pass rules on a CAFO or a drag-show, it’s absolutely their constitutional right to do so. The state cannot, in my opinion, restrict this right. The Missouri Supreme Court thinks differently. They think the state can make rules for the country or municipality. This implies that state leaders know better than local leaders what the people of the region desire.

Conclusion

If the people of St. Louis City have no desire to outlaw drag shows then the state should have no power to overrule them. Likewise, if a rural community wants to restrict how a CAFO goes about their business, the state should not be able to overrule them.

If you are for one of those things but against the other, then you are neither a conservative or a liberal. I don’t know what you are, but I do know you’re not a Libertarian.

Tom Liberman

Can Rules Fix the Shift in Baseball

Posted on by
The Shift

Baseball season is upon us and that’s good news for everyone but fans of The Shift. You see, baseball has new rules in place to prevent teams from using The Shift. Ah, the good old tried and true method of fixing of a problem by creating a complicated and almost unenforceable rule. Of course, by tried and true I mean tried and failed.

Will the new rules fix the problem or will they just create a myriad of other problems without really addressing the underlying issue? Is this, in fact, a microcosm of the overly ruled and regulated society in which we find ourselves?

What is the Shift?

In 2003 the Oakland A’s achieved success with an analytic based player analysis system. Since then, most of the other teams in the league followed along. This system heavily values power hitting, that is to say home runs and doubles. This resulted in several changes to the way baseball is generally played.

One change resulting from this is how hitters now swing. In order to get greater power numbers, players began to swing harder. This led to a great deal of what is called pull-hitting. A right-handed batter will almost exclusively hit the ball to the left and vice-versa for a left-handed player.

Teams began to clue in on this and instead of arraying their infielders in a traditional pattern, fairly evenly dispersed over the field, they began to align them heavily toward the expected position of the batted ball.

The Shift Rule

The executives in charge of Major League Baseball view the shift as too effective. The players who swing hard and get doubles and home runs were now grounding out far too often. Well, at least far too often for the league’s preference.

In order to rectify this problem, they created a new rule. Now teams are not allowed to have more than two infielders on either side of second base. The rule is a little more complex than that, but that is the gist of it.

The Response

Naturally, teams try to get around the intent of the rule. They place outfielders close in to the infield. The players crowd near to second base without quite going over the invisible line, adding to the burden of umpires who have plenty to do as it is.

I’m sure other ways to defeat the intent of the rule will be found as the season progresses. I’m sure MLB will institute tweaks to the rule in future season.

Why the Shift Rule is Stupid

The shift rule is dumb. If a team wants to play seven players on the infield near where the batter is likely to hit the ball, good for them. I doubt there are many cricket fans in my audience but those who follow the sport know that’s exactly how it works in that sport. The defensive team can position their players largely where they’re likely to succeed.

If a team thinks their hitters are grounding out too often, there’s a simple solution. Stop trying to hit a home run every time you’re at bat. Draft some players who spray the ball around the field.

The cat and mouse game that is professional sports largely polices itself. When a team has success doing something a particular way, other team follow. Then along comes a new way that defeats the old and round and round we go.

Conclusion

I’m not against rule changes categorically but I don’t think such changes should be based on a heavy-handed attempt to modify the strategy of the game.

Let game strategy police itself. You want to stop the shift, get players who pull the ball to the opposite field.

Tom Liberman

The Ark Episode 2 Review

Posted on by
The Ark

I finally got around to watching the second episode of The Ark and I’m sorry to say many of the problems from the first episode remain.

There was one character I actually liked so at least that’s an improvement. If you want to read my review of the first episode, please do so because I’m not going to repeat my thoughts even though many of the issues are the same.

Bad Science in The Ark

The thing that annoyed me most about this episode revolved around absolutely wretched science. I think when you’re writing a science fiction television series it’s fairly important to have some passing knowledge of what you speak.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not asking for technical scientific explanations about every mechanism of the ship. I don’t need to know how cryogenics works. I’m more than willing to suspend my disbelief when the situation warrants it.

In this case the most egregious science came during the water crisis. More about that later.

Basically, they are running out of water and the hydraulic engineer needs to fix the water reclaimers. Again, I don’t need to know too much about the process of doing so although a little technical discussion rather than just yelling, “fix it”, might be nice.

The engineer decides, without telling any other officer, to take all the coolant system water and reclaim it. The engines then stop working, no duh. Oh no, says the captain, we’ll just stop without those engines working, we’re dead in the water.

First off, engines don’t just stop working. Perhaps an alarm about rising heat and then an automated shutdown or, if not, the engines simply overheating and seizing.

The opening scene of the episode sees an explosion sending a crewmember drifting off into space. A second person launched himself and grabs the drifting person, then both of them change direction, for no apparent reason, and fall back to the surface of the ship. I use the word fall loosely.

The problem here is that in space, once you have momentum, there’s no friction to slow you down. Shutting off the engines is actually a problem but not because the ship stops but because in the fourth year of a five-year journey you’ve turned the ship around and are firing the engines to slow down. Thus, avoiding zooming past your target at an unsustainable speed.

This is not complex science. It’s not difficult to get right. Getting it right fixes these scenes and is done easily. Have the crewman who saves the other simply fire his pack jets a second time. Explain the momentum problem of the ship with a few lines of dialog.

Crisis from Nowhere

Again, crisis just appears. The first crisis is the opening scene during a space walk when debris from the broken part of The Ark threatens the crew examining the damage. Why not have some discussion about doing a space walk first? Let us get to know the crew member who is going to die before you kill him?

The second crisis is the water pipe burst. Again, it’s not hard to set all this up. When they are building the irrigation system maybe spend a few lines explaining why you don’t have shut-off valves on all the pipes. Take a few seconds showing the murderer throwing the weapon into the piping system. This is foreshadowing and lets the audience in on what is about to happen. It builds tension.

I won’t even talk about how the genius farmer boy doesn’t know about a shut-off valve. Well, I guess I just did.

Talking in front of the Crew

The annoyance I felt every time the officers aired all their grievance with one another in front of the entire crew is indescribable. They stand there discussing how to deal with the rioters in front of the tied-up rioters. It’s absurdly stupid.

Stereotypes

The Stereotype problem remains. The psychiatrist girl is painful to watch. Attractive women should mount a boycott.

Infighting

The entire crew is in a dangerous situation but rather than try and help out, they snipe at each other over ridiculous things. I can understand overworked and stressed out crew members snapping but there is no build up, it’s just someone arguing something really stupid for no reason. Then the good crew member manages to convince them to behave a second later. There’s no drama in it, just two people pretending to have a dramatic conversation.

I might add, everyone looks pretty darned refreshed for not having slept or showered in two days. Great hair!

Security

Hooray! Something I liked. The security guy investigating the murder. I actually liked his firm attitude and professionalism. In addition, his sidekick might be that dark-haired, crazy-in-her-eyes type that I find irresistible. Give her some lines.

Conclusion

Please get better, The Ark. Please, I want to like you. I love science fiction shows. The wounds here are all self-inflicted. The concept of the show is intriguing.

Tom Liberman

Perry Mason is an Excellent Show

Posted on by
Perry Mason

I just finished the first season of Perry Mason on HBO and largely loved it. I think it’s pretty easy to get into a rut writing negative reviews. Such articles definitely get more interest than the ones that wax poetic about a show.

Therefore, it is with great joy I write this review about the modern interpretation of the old classic, Perry Mason. The Perry Mason novels and television shows date way back to his debut in the 1933 pulp fiction novel by Erle Stanley Gardner.

After a famous radio series, a successful television series run, and lots of movies we now arrive at an HBO series. Let’s get into it!

What is Perry Mason?

The first season of the show covers a period of time before Perry Mason became a lawyer and his transition into that role. He is a private investigator working for E. B. Jonathon played by John Lithgow with his usual brilliance.

Jonathon takes up the case of a murdered baby and uses Perry Mason, played energetically by Matthew Rhys, as the lead detective to determine what actually happened.

Why is it Good?

Determining why a show is good or bad is generally pretty easy but explaining why it is so can be more challenging. I’ve written before about what makes a show good or bad and Perry Mason hits all the good marks.

The Acting

The acting is generally superb with Lithgow, Chris Chalk as Paul Drake, Shea Wigham as Pete Strickland, and Tatiana Maslany as Sister Alice standing out. Not to say Rhys as Mason, Juliet Rylance as the iconic Della Street, and Andrew Howard as a disturbed and violent police officer are not exceptionally good as well. Everyone from the main players to the bit parts sells their role. I’m not going to mention all the excellent performances but if you look up the cast, you’ll not see a single actor who failed to convince me.

The Writing

The writing is equally good and allows the actors to really set their teeth into all of the roles. The district attorney, the judge, the accused criminal, all fantastic roles and all played superbly. There were a few moments where I thought Perry Mason himself was portrayed as a bit too hot-headed and irrational but I understand that was done to set up the ending when he transforms into the cool-headed and rational Perry Mason we all know from previous media.

The Sets

Incredible. From matchbooks to motor vehicles to radio microphones. I’m astonished at the craftsmanship of the set designers. The attention to detail. The clothes. Everything looks real to me. Maybe someone with a better eye than mine can find a few anachronistic things but I noticed nothing.

The Music

As is always the case, less is more with music. We don’t need the music to tell us a scene is dramatic, sad, happy, or anything else. We should know that from the scene itself. The music is there not to explain but to enhance. If I ever find the music overbearing then I know there’s a problem. Didn’t happen in Perry Mason.

The Love Stories

There are several love stories in Perry Mason but they don’t interfere with the main plot, they enhance it, they are not the focus. Often times the love interest can take over. In this case Perry’s affair with the airfield owner is gritty and real. It gives us insight into Perry himself. The affair of between Emily Dodson and George while integral to the story takes place off screen. Della and her girlfriend are there but not in your face and over-the-top Woke.

The Story

The story unfolds with each episode at a leisurely but satisfying pace. We learn more and more. Each individual episode tells its own story, introduces ideas, characters, themes. There is no rush to tell us things, nor are important facts hidden from us in order to create a twist ending. We learn, with Perry Mason, the horrible truth although in the end he cannot prove it.

The Ending

The ending isn’t completely satisfying. It doesn’t try to wrap up all the loose ends. One feels for poor, abused Sister Alice and for her replacement Emily; but it’s not all joy and happiness. The ending isn’t the end but it’s enough to leave me quite satisfied and yearning for more.

A nod to the first novel at the end was a nice touch.

Conclusion

Good crime drama done right. I eagerly await season 2.

Tom Liberman

Pot Calls Kettle Black the Spy Balloon

Posted on by
Spy Balloon

China is spying on the United States with a Spy Balloon. Stunned. Shocked. Outraged. How could this happen! We must condemn China for this horrible offense against our country. I mean, it is horrible to spy on another country, right?

The United States Congress, in their near infinite wisdom, voted 419 – 0 to condemn China for spying on the United States with a spy balloon. Perhaps many spy balloons. Who can say? Unanimous! That’ll teach those Chinese not to spy on us. We hold the moral high ground here!

Stupidity Reigns

Don’t get me wrong, fill up my comments with outrage. I’ve got no problem trying to counter the Chinese spy balloon. Shoot it down. Track it. Understand how the Chinese are spying on us and prevent it in any way we can. What bothers me is this moronic condemnation from our brilliant leaders.

Everyone reading this is well aware the United States uses many methods to spy on China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, and, as Edward Snowden will tell you, illegally on our own citizens and most of our allies as well.

The fact this resolution unanimously passed through the House of Representatives is illustrative of how useless our government is becoming. This is the sort of legislation both parties manage to work on together. Useless legislation.

Condemn Ourselves

When we condemn another nation for spying, we condemn ourselves. Spying happens. Very intelligent people work diligently to keep our country safe from threats around the world. I applaud them. They are doing good work. Other countries have exactly the same dedicated people doing it for them. This is the nature of the world. I realize it, you realize it, anyone with half a brain realizes it. This, of course, leaves out the members of the House of Representatives.

Not one member voted against this ludicrous condemnation. Not a single person had enough guts to stand up and say, this is dumb. This is useless. This is a dog and pony show designed for the sole purpose of giving the voters of this country the illusion we are actually doing something.

The Voters Responsibility

We vote for the people who represent us. If they spend their time passing useless and hypocritical resolutions because they think we will approve, it’s our fault. We voted for them. This vote clearly demonstrates the members of the House of Representative think we’re morons, maybe they’re right.

Conclusion

If I were in charge, I’d make a simple statement. China spies on us. We spy on China. If you don’t realize this simple fact and piss your knickers because a spy balloon flew over the country then you’re not living in reality. By condemning China, we condemn ourselves.

Tom Liberman

A Poor Start for The Ark

Posted on by
The Ark

I’m a big fan of science fiction and fantasy and The Ark looked like it might be right up my alley. I’m sad to say the first episode was lackluster in a number of ways. What went wrong? Is it salvageable? These are good questions and I’ll take a look.

I will say that a first episode can be difficult. The actors and writers don’t always have a full understanding of the characters. The structure of the story can change as things move deeper into a show. Watch the first episode of a show you love and then compare it to what it became. Starting off slowly isn’t uncommon and I’m happy to give The Ark some time.

That being said, it wasn’t good. Let’s get on with the review.

What is The Ark?

The Ark details an interplanetary mission to colonize a new world. The best and brightest of Earth are on The Ark to find a new home for humanity. The crew is in hibernation while the ship makes its five-year journey to this new world.

The Opening Scene

The opening scene is designed specifically to set the tone for the show. There is some sort of disaster and the ship experiences catastrophic failures. The hibernation pods are turned on so the crew can deal with the problem. Unfortunately, the entire command crew of The Ark dies when their wing of the ship is destroyed.

This creates the underlying plot structure specifically mentioned by the show producer, Dean Devlin. The idea is to see how ordinary people work together once the people picked to be in charge are no longer around.

It’s an interesting idea and well-worth exploration.

The Stereotypes are Everywhere

The show stereotypes almost every single character and it’s more than a little annoying. The nerdy guy and girl are the geniuses who save the ship. The female lead is the headstrong, take-charge type. The hunky guy is full of himself. The pretty girl is a narcissist.

Some people are complaining the show is Woke, I guess because of the female lead, but in reality, it’s the opposite of Woke. The characters are all stereotypical and dull. They are excellent examples of anti-wokeness. Judge a book by its cover. Nerdy people stammer and are awkward. Pretty people are vain.

The Science is Bad

I’m certainly not a stickler for hard science in a show of this nature. What tends to bother me are scenes where doing the science right is simple and yet overlooked. What is with all the number keypads on the doors? Why is the drama wrapped up in the door not opening? Why does the combination work the third time when it didn’t the first two?

How are they going to grow crops in one inch of soil spread out on the floor? You need beds. Consult a gardener. How difficult is it to figure this out? Not to mention stomping all the soil it until it’s hard as rock.

How come the crew of this enormous spaceship is four-hundred people? There is a huge amount of space and almost no one living there. It makes no sense. What are all the open spaces? If the crew was supposed to sleep in hibernation until arrival, the ship is just an incredible waste.

Why do they need water recyclers? Again, the crew was supposed to sleep until a few weeks before arrival. They have food and water for that time-frame. No need for recyclers. There were a few other things I noticed but I’m rambling now.

Conflict with no Build Up

This was probably my biggest problem with the entire first episode. Each major obstacle occurred without any buildup whatsoever. The ship malfunction that awakened the crew is the opening scene.

Next is the water and food crisis. Why not have a few scenes where people are examining the situation, talking about the amount of food and water available. The number of crew members remaining. Discussing putting people back in stasis. There’s no setup, it’s just instantly a problem.

The nerdy guy, mentioned earlier, suddenly has a solution. Why not show him going to the cargo bay and making sure his special items are indeed stored? Have him discuss the possibility of growing food with someone. Build up to the crisis and then cover the possible solutions. The show just throws it all at us instantly.

The oxygen crisis came out of absolutely nowhere. Why not show parts of the damaged ship, show valves leaking oxygen? Show indicators as the problem slowly rises. Build some tension. Maybe one person notices it but is told not to worry.

Why not have the crew member charged with putting oxygen in helmets stop for the day at the important hallway? She’s exhausted and thinks about going on but then leaves it for tomorrow. This is foreshadowing. This is writing a plot, a structure. Building tension. When the conflict arrives out of nowhere with no warning, it’s just not as impactful as seeing it slowly coming.

Solutions with no Explanation

The oxygen problem is solved instantly because the nerdy girl, mentioned before, happened to do her dissertation on the guy who wrote the software. Why not spend some time with her beforehand where she discusses her life, her experiences. Perhaps even in a way that’s not incredibly annoying because the writers felt the need to stereotype her so badly. Then when she knows this stuff, we understand how.

Her solution isn’t really a solution at all. It’s just her pushing some buttons and everything being solved despite the leak still existing.

Conclusion

I’ve been rambling here for a while so I’ll wrap up. I did have other problems with the first episode of The Ark but I’ll leave them for now.

Stereotyped characters. No rising tension. No thought-out solutions. Rushed. That’s the word I’d use. Very rushed. Slow it all down. Let the stories unfold, build the drama. The first ten minutes of the show, the disaster, finding the command crew dead, survivors finding out what happened and adjusting to the new paradigm. That’s interesting. That’s a good first episode. Make that the first sixty minutes and you’ve got something. As it is, I’m not hopeful. Too much, too fast. Not interesting.

Tom Liberman